Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

yeah, is there any question why Rubio was selected? He’s selling it to us, not the left… all in a bid to buy elections down the road, as if they’ll get support from the left or the immigrants through this.

…somehow, I feel like the republicans are selling their birthright for a bowl of soup.

She_patriot

Republicans are not selling anything, Rubio is trying to give away the American Birthright and make us pay for it to boot. Hmmm, could the establishment golden boy have the fight of his career next time he runs, I’ll be he will ! He flatout changed his tune on this issue and folks in his district are slow to forgive a RINO in conservative clothing !

Indiana

No, he is from Florida. The land of Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist and Bill Nelson. He will be re-elected as Senator.

bobemakk

I don’t know about that, he is becoming a RINO.

Indiana

No. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all still say he is a new face in conservative leadership

The apologist: but, but, but…he’s reaching across the aisle. But he’s compromising with the Dems. But, but….

My reply: ahhhhhhh SHUDDUP!

KittyAmerica

Bowl of menudo.

Lime Lite

Rubio = RINO!

PatrickHenrysBody

Yes.

daeghrefn

The officially anointed Next In Line.

Orangeone

The MSM’s candidate. Wonder if his qualifications to be potus will be challenged by the MSM unlike Barky’s. The Dems sure will go after it.

daeghrefn

Unless there’s a miracle, Rubio’ll be the nominee and still lose 75% of the Latino vote. This is SuperElectable Mr Inevitable Romney all over again.

Orangeone

He’s a Bush boy. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination unless through voter fraud or Dems voting for him in primaries. He ran on Tea Party, against illegal alien amnesty and has done an about-face. This is much too soon after the Romney/Ryan fiasco for people to forget, especially in FL.

Bush’s daughters drank underage. Unlike Bush I don’t have any problem with Palin, but Bristol’s embarrassed her family pretty bad.

cabensg

Not the same thing at all as running for president. I’d take him in a heartbeat as my Senator but unless things change drastically I can’t see supporting him for president. I’ve said good things about Rand all along because he’s doing the job as Senator like we’d want from all our Republican Senators.

South Carolina conservatives are beginning to be on Rubio’s side. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)said to CNN reporters on air that people in his district are ok with a path to citizenship only on the conditions of a secure border, employment verification and guarantee we don’y have to go through this conversation again.

Orangeone

1986 repeated. That is exactly the bill of lies we were sold then and now we have almost 700 times as many illegal aliens as we did then.

Indiana

You need to stop being cynical about this.

Orangeone

I don’t need to do anything. Did you vote in 1986? Have you paid for illegal aliens for the last 40 years through tax payments?

Indiana

1986? No. Did I pay? Yes.

Orangeone

Then this is your first round. I suggest you research Reagan’s 1986 amnesty. It will sound very familiar beginning with “seal the border, verify employment, never happen again”.

Indiana

Which is why they [Rubio (R-FL), Flake (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC) and McCain (R-AZ)] are being cautious, that is the point many Republicans are raising.

Orangeone

The thread has run out. The Gang of 8 Repubs are not being cautious, they underestimated those of us that lived through the last set of lives holding them out for what they truly are.

Indiana

What I am saying is that we cannot afford to be divided at this time. Don’t you see that is exactly what Barack Obama wants? He wants us to destroy ourselves and if the House GOP establishment and Tea Party don’t stand together then they won’t stand a chance against Obama in 2014. What I meant was take the damn Senate. I think the House can hold their numbers but we need to take the damn Senate.

Democrats perhaps vulnerable in 2014:

Senator Mark Begich of Alaska – I would like to see a challenge again by 2010 candidate Joe Miller (He won the GOP nomination but he and the Democrat lost against incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski who staged a successful write-in candidacy)

Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas – Arkansas Lt. Governor Mark Darr announced his campaign but there is no indication of how that race may go. Pryor was re-elected in 2008 with 80% of the vote without a GOP contender.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana – I would like to see a challenge from recently ousted TEA Party Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA)

Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina – I would like to see a challenge from Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC), I believe she is a TEA Party person. She shows promise.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia (retiring) – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) announce her campaign and she seems to be likely to take that seat (She is pro-choice)

On the bubble:

Senator Max Baucus of Montana

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa – He is retiring. I would like to see a run from Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota – Fmr. Governor Mike Rounds has announced his campaign.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia – I would like to see a challenge from Governor Bob McDonnell. Depending on how the 2013 Gubernatorial Election goes for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli against Fmr. DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, I am unsure if we can take back Virginia. Or Bishop E. W. Jackson (Black Pastor who ran in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate in Virginia in 2012 but lost to George Allen who lost to Tim Kaine.

Orangeone

Feel free to vote any way you choose. Those of us that have lived through and paid for many an amnesty won’t do it again.

Whenever leftist Dems and the propagandist media arm of Zero endorse a Republicant, DON’T SUPPORT THAT REPUB!!!

bbitter

Yup. Let the entire conservative world be on notice; Rubio is the establishment candidate right now, and thus is part of the establishment. What that means is up for debate; is the establishment moving right, or Rubio left?

Make of that what you will, but I’ve seen enough of the establishment machines and how they have destroyed our country to want to be far away from any of them.

sDee

Always the same Two steps to the left. One back to the right.

Amjean

The establishment will move right to get $$$ and other support to their
rino repub operation. The shift to the left begins after voting has concluded.

Haven’t we seen this scenario played out before? Most recently in 2010 and
2012? Of course, in 2012 they bit the head of conservatives off
the minute Romney became the nominee. Then they didn’t need us anymore.
Threw us, Palin, the Tea Party under the bus. Don’t anyone forget it.

Kelly60

Well, he isn’t a Natural Born Citizen…yes, I’m waiting for the arguments…already been readin them on Ulsterman…

daeghrefn

Well I disagree completely with that tack. It’s loopy. Rubio is an American citizen, and “natural born” has never been fully defined anyway. In my opinion I think “natural born” means “born here”.

Kelly60

I agree to disagree with you. The Founders made the distinction of “Natural Born” at the time for a reason (divided loyalty coming from parents origin) otherwise there would be no need to even mention the term. Rubio’s parents were not US Citizens at the time of his birth, he is a Citizen, not natural born. I believe that also applies to Cruz and Santorum as well. You’re stating an “Anchor baby” can be the POTUS and I disagree wholeheartedly.

daeghrefn

“Rubio’s parents were not US Citizens at the time of his birth, he is a Citizen, not natural born.”

Rubio was born in the US. He is a “natural born citizen of the US”. If “natural born” means one’s parents have to be citizens of the UNITED STATES at the time of birth, then Washington was also disqualified. So would Andrew Jackson. Fremont would have been ineligible to run. So would Chester Arthur.

sDee

If “natural born” means one’s parents have to be citizens of the UNITED STATES at the time of birth, then Washington was also disqualified.

The Founders did include a one time, one generation exception for that in Article 2 Section 1. Had they not, they could not have run.

That they made such a very narrow exception is the strongest proof of their intent of two-citizen parents, as a shield against usurpation.

They though this through very carefully. They knew a man with foreign allegiance like Hussein Obama would be in the wings.

a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

The Founders were Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, not Natural Born Citizens.

Orangeone

So correct ma’am and if I remember my history correctly, there wouldn’t have been anyone able to be potus because of the 2 generations needed.

lostdutchman

Natural born does NOT mean the parents were also! Only that they both be citizens, naturalized or other. At least Obama had one citizen parent!

Orangeone

And which parent would that be? Citizenship was surrendered when they moved to Indonesia

lostdutchman

Parental citizenship is only required at the time of birth. Obama’s mother was born in Kansas, and thus a citizen, even tho she was one month from being old enough to confer citizenship on her child. His father was never a US citizen. Citizenship by birth cannot be surrendered, or otherwise lost, by changing residency…surrendering it requires, at least, a petition to the State Department.

Orangeone

Barky’s own publicist stated for 17 years he was born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia.

Orangeone

“Citizenship by birth cannot be surrendered”. That is untrue. If an American immigrates to certain other countries, US citizenship must be renounced. Do a bit of research.

smrstrauss

Re: “Barky’s own publicist stated for 17 years he was born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia.”

So? Who says that publicists are always correct? She has admitted making that mistake, and the officials of Kenya say that Obama definitely was not born in Kenya (and only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961).

Some things that show that Obama was born in Hawaii:

1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document. http://turningthescale.net​/?p=541)

2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates (short form and long form)—-that Obama was born in Hawaii—by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor, who is a friend of Sarah Palin’s) and several Democrats, and by the public Index Data file. The acceptance of the written confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the conservative secretary of state of Arizona.

3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that were sent to the papers “Health Bureau Statistics” section by the DOH of Hawaii—-and only the DOH could send those notices. (Also, the claim that the DOH could have been influenced by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found. (A child born in a foreign country would, of course, require either to be on his mother’s US passport or to receive a US visa on a foreign passport. Either of which would have had to have been done IN a US consulate in that foreign country, and the application for that document would still exist, and would have been found by the Bush Administration during the eight years in which it was in charge of the US State Department, but they didn’t.)

5. The teacher, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it (about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley).

6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

7. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days. WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama’s father remained in Hawaii throughout 1961, which would have meant that she would have had to have made that long, expensive and risky trip without him—and that is hardly likely at all. In fact, it is irrational to believe that Obama’s relatives were rich enough (his grandfather was a furniture salesman and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank in 1961) or stupid enough to send Obama’s mother on a long, expensive and risky (the incidence of stillbirth was high in those days) trip to a foreign country when she was late in pregnancy——when there were perfectly fine hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Re the assertion that if you move to certain countries you have to give up US citizenship. That is false, and it is truly nutty.

lostdutchman

How do you ‘renounce’ your citizenship if not by some ‘official’ communication….with whom? The Govt. doesn’t notify you by mail that you are no longer welcome in the country, at least not yet. Therefore, I said you have to write your request to the Dept of State.

smrstrauss

You cannot “surrender” your US citizenship. You have to declare that you renounce it, in writing before a US government in official, which in Indonesia would have been a US consul, and there is no record of that having been done.

smrstrauss

No it wasn’t. In order to surrender US citizenship, you have to do it in WRITING before the correct official, and when you are overseas that it a US Consul. So, if Obama’s mother had surrendered her citizenship, there would be a record of it—and there isn’t any. There is BTW, no way for a child to give up his or her US citizenship. And neither Obama nor his mother ever became a citizen of Indonesia, as a call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm.

smrstrauss

They do not even have to be citizens. If the child was born on US soil, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen. The term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

smrstrauss

Natural Born Citizen does not require either of the parents to be citizens either at birth or naturalized. The term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

smrstrauss

The parents do not even have to be citizens, not two of them and not even one. That is because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Nukeman60

Fortunately for all of us, neither you, nor I, nor Black’s Law Dictionary, nor Sen. Hatch, nor Edwin Meese get to make that call as to what is defined as “Natural Born Citizen”. It is the original intent of the founding fathers that should be taken into consideration.

Can you explain, with your definition, why the founding fathers differentiated between native citizen and natural born citizen and gave the latter requirement to the President alone and nowhere else? There is a definite difference between citizen (native or naturalized), native citizen, and natural born citizen. You speak of a native citizen (one born in this country), whereas a natural born citizen is one born in this country of citizen parents (plural).

The founding fathers were using de Vattel’s The Law of Nations when describing such things, and not common law as they tried to differentiate themselves from the common British law at the time (getting away from what was known as a natural born subject in common British law).

You can’t be serious to think that an anchor baby can be qualified to be President. The founders tried to prevent such a situation with their terminology. Unfortunately, they failed to define “natural born citizen” and therein lies the dilemma.

As to Black’s Law Dictionary, they don’t even define “unalienable” anymore (since the 2nd edition, anyway) and prefer to use the term inalienable when talking of our constitutional rights – and that position is wrong, as much as their definition of “natural born citizen” is wrong. They deal in case law and not constitutional law and therein lies their error.

Here is an excellent article with several examples, using quotes and links, of the influence that Vattel had on the founding fathers, including the case of “natural born citizen”.

NO, they were not using Vattel, who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, and whose French word “indigines” was not even translated into English as Natural Born Citizen until a decade after the Constitution was written. (And if they had translated the word “indigines” as Natural Born Citizen and were using it instead of the common term at the time, the term that they were familiar with, the term Natural Born from the common law, they would have said so.)

Re: the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution. I completely agree. And the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution, who were mainly lawyers and justices, was to the use the term Natural Born the way that they were familiar with, which was the way that it was used in the common law. THAT was their original intent, and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Not a single example of them using the term Natural Born to refer to parents can be found, but several examples can be found in which they use the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law. In short, if they had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born from simply a citizen who was born in the country (as opposed to a citizen who was naturalized) to one involving parents, they would have told us.

And, not only is there the historical evidence for this that I have described, but that is also the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, as I have described. In that ruling, a six to two ruling (one justice did not vote), the court said, as Meese said, and as the historical research cited above also said, that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law and refers to the place of birth. So, that is both the historical meaning of the term, the original intent of the writers, and it is also the law.

Re why did they use the term Natural Born and not “native born.” Because, as said, they were mainly lawyers and Natural Born was the legal term that they wanted. Native born includes the children of foreign diplomats and others at the time who were considered members of sovereign powers, meaning American Indians. They were native born, but not Natural Born because of their considered sovereignty. So, the term Natural Born was a limiting term. It was also by far the more commonly used of the two terms at the time. Native born was rarely used, but Natural Born was used all the time.

And, here is an example of how it was used:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

(As you can see, that refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents.)

Re: “You can’t be serious to think that an anchor baby can be qualified to be President. ”

Answer: I am perfectly serious. If the founders had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners, legal or illegal, they would have told us. If they had felt that the US-born children of foreigners were lower-level citizens, less qualified and more of a security risk, than the US-born children of US citizens—they would have told us.

Re; ‘The founders tried to prevent such a situation with their terminology. ”

What they prevented was simply billions of people who are not citizens becoming president and millions of people who are naturalized US citizens and not citizens at birth from becoming president (and people under the age of 35 years and those not resident for 14 years too, of course).

Nukeman60

I will answer all three of your posts to me here, as I don’t wish to waste any more of my time than necessary.

You appear to have two arguments that you base your theories on. One, that the fonding fathers wanted to use British Common Law to write the Constitution, and two, that Wong Kim Ark was a defining ruling on Natural Born Citizen.

The founders explicitly said they wanted to get away from using British common law and wanted to differentiate themselves from it. Your statement that they never mentioned Vattel in the Federalist Papers is wrong, as well. They never mentioned his name, but the concepts of The Law of Nations is written throughout the Federalist papers.

Also, if they wanted the British Common Law to be the rule of the land, they would have said that as well. They distinctly talked about severing themselves from being British subjects and wanted a difference from that concept. You base all your arguments from Blackstone alone, and when using someone else to back it up they cite Blackstone too. You can’t defend an argument with the premise of that argument.

The Wong Kim Ark case was a ruling of citizenship of that man, and not one of Natural Born Citizen. All the state cases you cite that reference the Wong Kim Ark case make the same mistake you do, but they have no jurisdiction to define the Constitution. Nothing in Supreme Court rulings has ever defined Natural Born Citizen, to date. That is the problem and it is what allows you to mistakenly think that we are under British Common Law.

Intermingling the words citizen and natural born citizen, or stating that being naturally born and being a natural born citizen are the same, are errors in your writing and thinking. But take heart, it is the same errors that many people make, as indicated by your examples.

You have yet to declare whether you think ‘anchor babies’ are eligible to be President, as well. Why is it that you avoid that question continuously? It’s an important issue.

You have the right to believe that the founding fathers used Blackstone as the basis of the Constitution, but you are being disengenuous when you declare that de Vattel was not mentioned or used in their commentaries. All your arguments, as long and drawn out as they are, use that same point, over and over and over again. You actually look foolish when you use the Wong Kim Ark and the 14th amendment to declare anything about the term Natural Born Citizen, when it was ruled the man was a citizen and that was it. Try to stop interchanging the words.

smrstrauss

Re I have not answered whether they would have allowed anchor babies to become president. Well, duh, OF COURSE they would have allowed anchor babies and in fact ALL babies born on US soil to become president because. They thought, as Madison has written, that the soil, the PLACE of birth was the key criterion of allegiance and that everyone born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats would have allegiance to the USA. And that is, by the way, our current legal position, and there already have been courts that have ruled that the US-born children of illegal aliens are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. (And, of course, they are, since the meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law and refers to the place of birth.)
For example:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Re the Wong Kim Ark case not having ruled on Natural Born Citizen. You are wrong. Here are its words:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats (and, duh, that includes anchor babies) is a Natural Born Citizen. But, if you cannot believe your own eyes, that is what the NINE state and federal courts all agree that the Wong Kim Ark case said also. (As does Hatch and Graham and Black’s Law Dictionary and Meese, who agree that the term comes from the common law.) Re the allegation that the writers of the Constitution did not like the common law and wanted to get away from it, and that they said it. Answer: They said no such thing, and the common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, always with praise. Moreover, John Jay was the main author of the first Constitution of the state of New York, the 1777 constitution of New York State, and that constitution actually writes in the common law as the law of New York State unless and until changed by New York statute. So, the writers of the constitution really did like the common law—which is also shown by the use of such common law terms as Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto, and if they had intended to use a meaning of Natural Born other than in the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. Yes, they did read Vattel, but they read a lot of other writers too, in particular Blackstone, who was far more popular than Vattel, and they were mainly lawyers and justices, and if they had really switched the meaning from the Blackstone use of the term, which refers to the place of birth, jus soli, to the Vattel meaning, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.
Moreover, many of the same men had written about twenty years earlier: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” It is probably true that they did not hold to that statement literally and that many of them did not believe that slaves and Indians are created equal. But we do not have to assume that they disagreed with the principle universally, that all men are NOT created equal. So, unless they told us that they did not consider the US-born children of foreigners to be equal in every way to the US-born children of US citizens, we can assume that they meant that the US-born children of foreigners are indeed equal to the US-born children of US citizens. In any case, they did not tell us that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were likely to be security risks and that they should not be trusted.
And that includes the US-born children of illegal aliens. Sure, we voters can vote for them or not, the decision is ours. But it is OUR decision. The writers of the constitution did not take it away from us.

Nukeman60

One, you believe that if a foreigner illegally enters this country, has a baby, and raises them to have allegiance to that foreign country, then it’s okay for them to be President. The founding fathers did not believe that. They wanted to ensure that there were no foreign allegiances when a person was to take the highest position in the land.

Two, Your explanation from Wong Kim Ark describes, in detail what a natural born subject of England was and the court stated that. It was not their ruling. Learn Supreme Court proceedings, first of all. Secondly, the common law of England was indeed in practice prior to the Constitution and the founders clearly wanted to differentiate themselves from that, so wanting to be natural born subjects was against their beliefs. You cannot interchange ‘natural born subject’ and ‘natural born citizen’ or even ‘naturally born’ at will. It seems to run throughout your posts, that is whenever you’re not repeating yourself incessently to attempt to prove your point with your point.

Three, lesser courts don’t make constitutional law, they merely use it. As to whether they would have SAID SO to you about anything, why didn’t they ‘say so’ that they wanted us to be natural born subjects, a point they explicitly wanted to get away from.

I won’t say much more about your last paragraph. It rambles too much. If the founding fathers wanted you to ramble so much, they would have SAID SO. Please refer to my first post today to see the examples and quotes I discussed earlier.

smrstrauss

I completely agree. The original intent of the writers of the US Constitution, who were mainly lawyers and justices, was to the use the term Natural Born the way that they were familiar with, which was the way that it was used in the common law. THAT was their original intend, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Not a single example of them using the term Natural Born to refer to parents can be found, but several examples can be found in which they use the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law. In short, if they had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born citizen from simply a citizen who was born in the country, as opposed to a citizen who was naturalized, they would have told us.

And, not only is there the historical evidence for this that I have described, but that is also the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, as I have described. In that ruling, a six to two ruling (one justice did not vote), the court said, as Meese said, and as the historical research cited above also said, that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law and refers to the place of birth. So, that is both the historical meaning of the term, the original intent of the writers, and it is also the law.

Nukeman60

You’re a broken record …”they would have told us”… “Wong Kim Ark, in a 6-2 ruling”… whatever. If all you’re going to do is repeat the same false bases of your argument, then we are done. I have given you articles that state quotes, references and links of the fact that the founders followed Vattel rather than Blackstone in this regard to the Constitution. Unlike you, I won’t repeat them ad nauseum. I’ll give you just one more example, however. I hope yopu read this one, as it’s obvious you did not read my previous posts or links.

Or, if you wish, repeat one more time your only two points – that the founders followed Blackstone, using British Common Law (Natural Born subject) and that the Wong Kim Ark ruling had anything to do with the term Natural Born Citizen. It’s getting humorous at this point.

Btw, these links are not just blog sites. They are filled with quotes, references and links to the sources, so that I don’t have to list the hundreds available in my post.

smrstrauss

NO, they were not using Vattel, who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, and whose French word “indigines” was not even translated into English as Natural Born Citizen until a decade after the Constitution was written. (And if they had translated the word “indigines” as Natural Born Citizen and were using it instead of the common term at the time, the term that they were familiar with from the common law, they would have said so.)

Nukeman60

Do you actually have an original thought – or must you constantly repeat yourself over and over and over again. Remember, when your point is refuted, just repeating it again and again doesn’t make it right. Please refer to my other post of today, so that I don’t have to repeat.

smrstrauss

For those who would like to do some research on the subject, here are some links:

That is not true. They considered themselves to be AMERICAN because they were born on American soil. Yes, it was legally owned by Britain, but it was American soil. We are different from the British, and even the Americans who fought against the British knew that the were Americans, and not British (which is one reason that they fought).

Here is an example of how Natural Born Citizen was used at about the time that t he Constitution was written:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, they considered that if they were born in the USA they were Natural Born Citizens.

And this: “”Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)”

So, why did they add the grandfather clause? Because they wanted to allow some people who were not born on American soil to be eligible to be president. That would have included Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis, and another member of the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson (born in Scotland).

lostdutchman

Even a casual reading of the Constitution clearly explains why you are in ERROR. Go back and look a little more intently for your edification.

smrstrauss

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

and you might you know the real story behind Chester Arther’s fraud to chose such an obscure example?

daeghrefn

It doesn’t matter. Rubio was born here. He is as much a “natural born citizen” as I am. There are reasons to object to Rubio, but this ain’t one of them.

smrstrauss

Well said.

lostdutchman

Your assertion of being natural born needs more verification than your statement of such…much like Obama. There IS supreme court definition of the term, backed by citing of such in other cases and going unchallenged since its delivery in 1875; that being Minor v Happersett (1875). Also, numerous others in agreement in the legal professions. There is also a website devoted substantially in support of the definition as well, but refrain from mention here, lest it be prevented from posting for editorial reasons.

By your definition, all citizens created by the 14th Amendment would be eligible to be President, or Vice President.

smrstrauss

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen does not come from the Minor v. Happersett case; it comes from the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersett, and which ruled that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US Citizen.

Re: “By your definition, all citizens created by the 14th Amendment would be eligible to be President, or Vice President.”

Answer. Yes of course, but the 14th Amendment only clarified the citizen part of Natural Born Citizen. The Natural Born part goes way back, back to the common law, and it referred to the place of birth, and in fact that was the way that the term was used in the USA considerably before the 14th Amendment. For example:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Nukeman60

Wong Kim Ark was about the definition of “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”. You make a common error in your assumption.

Minor vs Happersett did not rule on “natural born citizen”. It was mentioned in a side note, but not ruled on. That mention stated that a person born of citizen parents was indeed a “natural born citizen”, but did not elaborate as to what else constituted a nbc (Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [‘first’ referring to nbc]).

As to common law, as I stated in a reply to one of your other posts, Blackstone preferred English Common Law, whereas the founders preferred de Vattel over Blackstone (in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the English common law).

As to William Rawle, it is merely an opinion (his), much like yours or mine – on it’s own, not worth much more than any other opinion. You must see what the founders said and what references they used to write the Constitution. I don’t believe they used Rawle for their references. As his title suggests, it was a view of the Constitution, meaning his take on it.

As to his quote, you can tell he misunderstands the term, as he states being a “natural born citizen” entitles one to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. Well, there is only one right “appertaining to that capacity” and that is the right to run for President. There are no others.

smrstrauss

Here are the actual words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

As you can see, that clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and as you can see, it also says that the same rule was used in England and in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, and it also says that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen.

So, what you say that the US Supreme Court did not say is precisely what it DID say, and that fact that it said (which you can see for yourself above, but if you doubt the evidence of your own eyes) has been recognized by Meese and Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and NINE state and federal courts. Including:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

smrstrauss

Re: “That mention stated that a person born of citizen parents was indeed a “natural born citizen”,

Yes a person born of US citizen parents in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, as Virginia Minor was. But that statement does not mean that you have to be both born in the USA and have citizen parents (two or even one). Simply being born in the USA may be sufficient, and as the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was after Minor v. Happersett) ruled, it is sufficient. Moreover, the Minor v. Happersett ruling was along the following lines: “It has never been doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt, you would hold your pants up.” Notice that that statement does NOT say that wearing both suspenders and a belt is required to hold your pants up. Well, the Minor v. Happersett did not say that two citizen parents and birth in the USA is required either. And, the key ruling remains Wong Kim Ark, which says that the term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

Re: “whereas the founders preferred de Vattel over Blackstone (in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the English common law).”

Answer: First, there is absolutely no evidence that they did not like the common law, which they referred to with praise about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and which John Jay actually wrote in the the first Constitution of the state of New York (the 1777 Constitution, in which the common law is the law of New York state unless and until a New York statute is passed that revises it). Second, if they had meant to use the Vattel meaning, referring to parents, and not the commonly used meaning at the time, the common law meaning, they would have told us. The Tucker and Rawle quotations are further historical evidence that the writers of the Constitution were using Natural Born in the common law sense and not to refer to parents.

smrstrauss

There is absolutely no evidence that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Moreover, James Buchanan’s father was never naturalized, and there is no evidence that he hid that fact either. Moreover, the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, James Fremont, had a father who was a French citizen, and was never naturalized, and he ran for president and no one ever told him that he couldn’t. Woodrow Wilson, BTW, was a dual citizen of Britain and the USA at birth because although is mother became a US citizen when she married his father, she never renounced her British subject status, so Wilson was a dual citizen at birth. James Madison was actually a dual citizen WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, having been made a full citizen of France by the French National Assembly.

lostdutchman

You are in error about Arthur, and his father did naturalize well after Arthur’s birth. Wilson’ s parents were BOTH citizens at his birth, in the US? Then he was natural born. The question never came up, and he did many things to prevent it from becoming so, including destroying all of his personal, potentially incriminating papers at his death, or had a trusted friend do it. While a respected President, he had one large blemish.
As for Madison, the US had no control over what the French did, or when they did it. Their actions had no effect on his citizenship, especially since nbC can only be acquired by birth, at birth. You’re born that way, or not.

smrstrauss

My point on Arthur was that he did not hide the fact that his father was not a US citizen. He was not a US citizen, and neither Arthur nor anyone else at the time seemed to care. James Buchanan’s father also was not a citizen when he was born, and no one seemed to care.

The first presidential candidate of the Republican party, James C. Fremont, was proud of the fact that his father was French, and never naturalized, and no one seemed to care (and he was probably a dual citizen as well). Wilson’s parents were both US citizens, but he was nevertheless a dual citizen at birth because his mother did not give up her British subject status.

Re: “As for Madison, the US had no control over what the French did, or when they did it.’

Sure, but if you think that dual citizenship affects eligibility, you may think that a dual citizen would be a bad president, and James Madison was a dual citizen and not a bad president. Moreover, he, who had been at the Constitutional Convention, did not think that dual citizenship affected him.

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law and refer to the place of birth, and there really is noting at all in the common law that excludes dual citizens from Natural Born status. Not a word. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners or exclude dual citizens, they would have told us.

Orangeone

KeninMontana and I had a chat about this a few weeks back. Ted Cruz, although born in Canada, was born to a natural born American mom. Now despite many hours of legal case law research, I discovered we have no judicial precedent (appellate or SCOTUS cases) which interpret this federal law (role of the judicial branch). This leaves a perfect opening for the Dems to get behind Marco Rubio and then cut him off at the knees after the election, assuming he wins, by challenging he is not a natural born citizen thus taking the potus from him. Rubio is a win-win for the Dems.

smrstrauss

Neither the Dems nor anyone else can challenge the Natural Born Citizen status of Rubio because he was born on US soil. Cruz may be different (repeat MAY be), but Rubio is definitely a Natural Born US citizen because of his place of birth.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

See Kelly60 and sDee’s comments above. BTW, the CA appellate court has reinstated the case on Barky’s eligibility challenging he is not a natural born citizen!

smrstrauss

So? You have the right to appeal, and appeal and appeal. That’s a right. Everyone can do it. But there have been more than 100 cases, and birthers have not won one of them yet, and the idea that they will win this one still comes down to the stupid notion that Obama’s relatives were rich enough (they weren’t. his grandfather was a furniture salesman at the time, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank in 1961) and dumb enough to send their daughter on a long, expensive and risky (incidence of stillbirths high in those days) trip to a foreign country—when there were perfectly good hospitals in Hawaii.

smrstrauss

Rubio was born in the USA and is a Natural Born US citizen. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to use the term Natural Born differently than it was used in the common law, which was the overwhelming use of it at the time, they would have told us. MOREOVER, they never said in any of their letters or articles—not ONE of them—that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners were themselves foreigners, or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be lesser citizens than the US-born children of US-citizens or more of a security risk than the US-born children of US citizens. IF they had thought that that was true, they would certainly have told us—and they didn’t.

So it appears you are using attorney opinion and articles (not good enough for me) and in doing so you honestly believe that the Founders would agree that an Anchor Baby can be our POTUS? No matter who the parents are and how they’ve been raised? Are ya nuts?

I know many people like Rubio, Cruz, Santorum and whomever else there might be; however, the NBC distinction was made specifically due to the possibility of divided loyalty of the child being reared by their parents, otherwise, there wouldn’t be a need to use that terminology at all and ONLY when describing the qualifications for President.

smrstrauss

Re the founders believing that an anchor baby can be POTUS. IF the founders had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were lower-level citizens, more of security risks, than the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

smrstrauss

Moreover, it is very clear that the Americans at the time were convinced that the term Natural Born Citizen did not exclude the US-born children of foreigners. Here is an example:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

sDee

This is the same argument used for the Second Amendment. “Well it was talking about “militias”. We all know what the Founder’s intent of that Amendment was and to mince words to annul it, is disingenuous.

The Founders intent of the NBC clause to inhibit usurpation, is extremely clear. Look at the subversive ideology and allegiances of the man in the White House that we got because we ignored the Founder’s intent: the son of a non-citizen Kenyan Marxist who was raised in Indonesia by an islamist.

Why do you think the Founders called out Natural Born Citizen for the POTUS only?

Why did they not use “citizen”, or “naturalized” citizen, as they did for other offices?

cabensg

I think Rubio has already shown his true colors in this regard.

daeghrefn

“Why did they not use “citizen”, or “naturalized” citizen, as they did for other offices?”

Is Rubio a citizen by birth, or was he naturalized? Case closed.

sDee

You conveniently did not answer the first question which is the context for the second one.

Orangeone

Do you consider Barack Hussein Obama a citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen?

daeghrefn

By birth, barring evidence to the contrary.

smrstrauss

There is no evidence to the contrary. He was really born in Hawaii.

Obama’s birth in Hawaii is shown by:

(1) the birth certificate, short form and long form—-of which Obama showed both the images on the Web and the actual physical copies on security paper with the seal affixed; (2) the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties; (3) the confirmation by the public Index data file; (4) the confirmation by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and only the DOH could send those notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) The Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley; (6) the fact that Obama’s Kenyan relatives NEVER said that he was born in Kenya and, instead, said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the fact that the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya”story and found it false; (7) The fact that Hawaii is thousands of miles away from the nearest foreign country and women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in 1961. And neither Obama’s parents nor his grandparents at the time were rich enough or dumb enough to send their daughter on a long, expensive and risky trip (the rate of stillbirths was high in those days) to a foreign country late in pregnancy—-when there were perfectly good hospitals in Hawaii.

smrstrauss

They used the term Natural Born Citizen because it was a legal term (and they were by far mainly lawyers and justices) that meant “native born citizen but excluding the children of foreign diplomats and the children of invaders in foreign armies.” That is what the term Natural Born meant in the common law.

lostdutchman

Well, they also apparently had second thoughts about qualifications for the VPOTUS as well. Among other things, the LAST sentence of the Twelfth Amendment says that no one not qualified to br President shall be Vice President

smrstrauss

That is absolutely right. The meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that was confirmed in the Wong Kim Ark US Supreme Court case, which BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett.

sDee

Early in the 2008 cycle I was following Donofrio and made the case everywhere I could that Obama was ineligible under the NBC clause. The crushing unrelenting closed minded reaction I got from the leftists is almost identical to the reaction that I saw on Ulsterman today from the “right”. Eerily similar.

I really am growing stronger in my belief that we have already lost the Federal Government. There is no representation. It is not a sovereign nation. The entire political process is a pathetic Kubuki theater of the absurd.

The Amnesty will be the final blow. The politicians are all acting as that is the case…courting favor with those who rule and control us.

smrstrauss

You were wrong. Obama was born on US soil and hence is a Natural Born US citizen. That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six justices to two, one not voting), and nine state and federal courts have all said that the Wong Kim Ark ruling is the key ruling (not Minor v. Happersett, which was BTW, before the Wong Kim Ark ruling). Here are some of them:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Nukeman60

I’m responding up here, as you have exhausted the link and this is a dead thread anyway.

‘For those who would like to do some research on the subject, here are some links:…’ – smr

Well, here we go again. You are persistent. But I will oblige you and read all your links.

1st link: The first line of his answer sets the trend of the entire article. He follows English common law. The founders wanted to follow US common law and differentiate between them. Lynch vs Clark, Wong Kim Ark, the 14th Amendment – none of these deal with Natural Born Citizen (a mistake many lower courts have made, and a point I have to unfortunately keep making to you over and over again).

2nd link: It quoted Minor vs Happersett as a basis for their argument, when it actually left the question open. Otherwise, just drivel. The Supreme Court has NOT held that Natural Born Citizen refers to anyone born in the US (In fact, this blogger states himself plainly that it has yet to define it.

3rd link: Used the phrase but has never defined it – total waste of documenting, but looks impressive on first glance.

4th link: Once again (as above), you fail to realize that Lynch vs Clark, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, and the 14th Amendment all deal with whether or not a person is a citizen (of which there is presently no argument).

5th link: Uses Natural Born Citizen for Dummies as a basis. Is this why you like it?

6th link: Open letter from a blogger – that’s a good one (for a laugh).

7th link: Again, Woodman. Wong Kim Ark and Minor vs Happersett. Come on now, smr, get original. Also, if English Common Law was used by all US citizens at the time, why could he only find 9 known uses of the term Natural Born Citizen?

To save space, I refer you to the response by Mario Apuzzo, dated July 8, 2012 (11:44 pm). It counters the arguments made.

8th link: Well, there you have it! If Wiki says it’s so, then who are the founders to argue?

9th link: ‘Consensus’ rules, then. This from Cornell? Perkins vs Elg declared her a citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. Cornell Law should know better. Or is this what they taught you?

10th link: Gibney declares it has been ‘well settled’ as to the definition of Natural Born Citizen – even though no Supreme Court has ever defined it (is this like the Global Warming debate is ‘well settled’ with ‘consensus’, too?). Ark, Elg, Ankeny all use the citizenship view and not Natural Born Citizen.

Bottom line is you use English Common Law (when the founders explicitly wanted to differentiate between English and US common law), Ark and the 14th Amendment to erroneously define Natural Born Citizen, and Blackstone over Vattel as to the background of the founder’s position.

It is contentious until the Supreme Court hears a case of actual Natural Born Citizen to define the term. Until then, you will have one opinion and I will have another (no matter how many links we offer each other to read). But thanks for running me through 10 useless links. I enjoy seeing the dodging and ‘consensus’.

Keep trying.

smrstrauss

All of those cases and links say that Natural Born comes from the common law, not from natural law and not from Vattel. The writings of the founders can be searched, and the result shows that whenever they used the term natural born, they ALWAYS used it to refer to the place of birth, the way that it was used in the common law, and never used it to refer to parents. NEVER.

Meese, and senators Hatch and Graham, and Tucker and Rawle, and former senator Fred Thompson and all the links are right, you are wrong.

Re: ” Until then, you will have one opinion and I will have another…”

You have the right to your opinion. But it is nutty to believe that it is the law. It is not the law. The law is actually the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, which actually did say that the meaning comes from the common law and that is what NINE state courts and one federal court ruled too. All ten of those case ruled that the key ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case and that that case had said that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA with the exception of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

Oh, and on October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten cases, the Farrar case in Georgia, which had ruled that the Wong Kim Ark decision stated that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats.

THAT is the law, not your opinion. Oh, and by the way, in two presidential elections, not one single member of the US Electoral College changed her or his vote from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Romney or did not vote out of the crazy idea that Natural Born Citizen refers to the citizenship of parents. Not one, and the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY in both elections. Not one member of Congress voted against. Not one stated that she or he believed that two citizen parents are required.

Nukeman60

‘All ten of those case ruled that the key ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case…’ – smr

FINALLY, you say something true. Yes, they all use Wong Kim Ark as their basis, and even though you are a Cornell graduate, you can’t understand that the ruling in Wong Kim Ark was about the term ‘citizen’ and NOT ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Over and over again, you keep saying it wrong. It’s obvious, you don’t understand and probably never will. Too sad. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

smrstrauss

What you do not realize, and what the ten state and federal courts DO realize is that the US Supreme Court can do two things in the same ruling. It ruled that (1) Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen; and (2) It defined (correctly as the historical research shows) the meaning of Natural Born Citizen as coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth—NOT to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

We know that the ten courts are right because these are the actual words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

As you can see with your own eyes, those words say that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries.” And that is correct, as Blackstone says, and the fact that the writers of the Constitution used the term Natural Born from the common law is also confirmed by the fact that that is the way that they USED the term in their writings, and they never used it to refer to parents at all—not even once.

And the ruling says, as the ten courts all agree (and none disagrees), that the term Natural Born refers to the place of birth, as Blackstone and the Tucker and Rawle quotations all agree. And the ten courts all agree, as you can see with your own eyes from the quotation above, that EVERY child born in England, or in the 13 colonies or in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is considered a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

That is not only the law, it is indeed a historical fact. That is the way that the writers of the Constitution used the term, as the Madison quotation on allegiance, and the Alexander Hamilton, and the Ben Franklin/Adams/Jay quotations (which I have not shown due to their length) all show, and the Tucker and Rawle quotations—and the fact that not one single example can be found of the writers of the Constitution using the term Natural Born to refer to parents.

So Meese and the ten courts and Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary, and The Economist and the Wall Street Journal area all correct and you are wrong, and the same goes for the members of the US Electoral College in two elections (not one of whom switched her or his vote from Obama to McCain or from Obama to Romney or did not vote out of the idea that two citizen parents are required). Moreover, all the citations are correct, and you are wrong.

You have the right to your opinion, of course. But if you cannot convince even the National Review or Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Mitt Romney, and if you cannot get even one of ten appeals courts to accept your position, you will not convince many other people.

Nukeman60

Yawn. You continue on the same path. Your quote of the Wong Kim Ark case never once mentioned “Natural Born Citizen“. So I’m curious as to how you claim that quote shows the founders wanted the Constitution to read as the English Common Law did. They, themselves, stated that they wanted to get away from English Common Law. That’s why they had a revolution, if you hadn’t noticed.

I don’t expect to change your mind. It would be impossible to repair that. I’m just humored by your feeble attempt at reasoning.

But wait, Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim…

smrstrauss

The quotation says that the rule on Natural Born applied in England, and in the American colonies and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. That is the ruling of the Supreme Court. The way that we know that the writers of the Constitution intended to use the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law is from something else. It is from the fact that that is the way that they used the term and that then never used it to refer to parents. So, both the historical research and the Wong Kim Ark ruling say the same thing.

Re: “They, themselves, stated that they wanted to get away from English Common Law. That’s why they had a revolution..”

Answer, that was certainly NOT the cause of the Revolution. And the founders NEVER said that they wanted to get away from the common law. In fact, John Jay wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York (the 1777 Constitution), which says that the common law will be the law of New York State until it is changed by a New York statute. (That is certainly not a sign of wanting to get away from the common law). Nor is the reference to the common law about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise.

More importantly, far more importantly, IF they had really wanted to get away from the common law and were in fact using some other meaning other than the common law meaning of Natural Born, they would have told us. But they didn’t.

The meaning comes from the common law, as Tucker and Rawle and Meese and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case all agree.

Nukeman60

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone is a Natural Born subject. So, stop being so boring.

smrstrauss

However, the US Constitution does say that the president must be a Natural Born Citizen.

So, the question is where does the Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen come from?

The answer is that the writers of the Constitution used the term the way that it was used in the common law, the same way that it was used in Natural Born Subject, in all of their writings, and they never used it to refer to parents.

In short, if they had intended to make a change from the way that they used the term in the past, and the way that Tucker and Rawle used it at the time, to some new definition of Natural Born, not the commonly used definition from the common law, they would have told us.

smrstrauss

The following is in response to Nukeman60.

However, it does say that the president must be a Natural Born Citizen.

So, where does the term Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen come from? If it came from any other place than the Natural Born in Natural Born Subject from the common law, they would have told us.

smrstrauss

Re “the founders having ‘explicitly’ not wanted to use common law.”

That is not true at all. In fact, John Jay actually wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York, the 1777 Constitution, and it says that unless and until a New York law is passed the common law is the law of New York State. Moreover, the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise.

The issue, of course, is not whether the common law is US law. It is simply whether the words Natural Born comes from the common law or from some other sources. Well, since the common law was, wait for it, the common use of the term at the time, they certainly would have told us if they had some other source for the term, and they never did. And, they would have used Natural Born to refer to parents, not to the place of birth, but they never did that either.

smrstrauss

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

lostdutchman

Your post is completely immaterial. State courts are totally unable to establish any constitutionally matters, especially outside their jurisdiction. In the cases you cite, there was no adjudication, only citing of personal opinions or similar openings from different state courts, also rendered in granting dismissals rather than resolving any dispute.
The SCOTUS mentions natural born citizenship in regards to Only the office of President and Vice President. It is well established that every word in the Constitution has explicit meaning, and is to be construed thusly. What is the special adjectival meaning of ” natural” in that

lostdutchman

Trying to interchange natural born and natural born citizen terms is bordering on ludicrous, unless you really can’t make the difference. Once more, being natural born, or even being born naturally does not equate to natural born citizenship. One does not follow the other two. If it did, each term would be defined identically, by all parties to the discussion. If not, why not? Because they are not the same.

smrstrauss

The US Supreme Court has said that the term Natural Born really does come from the common law, and that it applies to citizens just as much as it did to subjects, and that was a six to two ruling (one justice did not vote). And the historical record shows that the writers of the US Constitution used the term the way that it was used in the common law and no example of them can be found using it to refer to parents. Meese is right, and you are wrong.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

smrstrauss

The US Supreme Court mentioned Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett. And that case said that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Here are its words:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

And, that ruling is correct. The meaning really does come from the common law and really does refer to the place of birth. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written can be shown by its use at the time. A search of the writings of Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, John Jay, John Adams and James Wilson (a prominent lawyer at the Constitutional Convention) shows that they always used Natural Born to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth and never used it to refer to parents at all. Here is an example of how it was used at the time, in 1803m, shortly after the Constitution went into effect:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, the above quotation refers to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.” That is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case as well, and it is what Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, says as well:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

The term Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law and not from Vattel (who btw was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law was mentioned about twenty times and whose word “indigines” was not even translated into Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution was written.)

smrstrauss

The state courts were simply referring to the decision by the US Supreme Court, which was in the Wong Kim Ark case. ALL of them referred to the Wong Kim Ark case, not to Minor v. Happersett. It was the Wong Kim Ark case (which was decided six to two, one justice not voting) that said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (not from Vattel) and that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats.

Quoting the state appeals courts was just a way to show that the knowledge that the US Supreme Court made the decision in Wong Kim Ark and not in Minor v. Happersett and that it had defined Natural Born Citizen as the place of birth and not the parents of a US-born citizen is widespread. Those nine courts, plus Meese, plus Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson, plus the constitutional scholars in 1803 and 1829, Tucker and Rawle. Have you got anyone to cite other than Mario Apuzzo and the other two or three birther lawyers?

sjmom

In English and Spanish?????

Orangeone

Just Spanish. Haven’t you heard, it’s his preferred language.

sjmom

I’m weary of Marco already.

Orangeone

I worry how soon the same may happen with Ted Cruz and I pray it doesn’t. Trey Gowdy used to be strong for our Constitution and laws, Rubio lied through his teeth to get elected.

Me too! And I wish the focus would be the firing of the Jobs Council, higher unemployment, skyrocketing estimates for ObamaCare, millions that are losing employer-paid health insurance because of ObamaCare.

lostdutchman

Mitt Romney’s father went under scrutiny by both parties for not being born in the US. Another requirement for eligibility. He dropped out of the primaries before it had to be decided. Cruz admittedly has a similar problem, plus a parent, too? That, I feel, is a bigger loss than Rubio.

bbitter

well, we can hope… not for his election but for his policies.

“Only Nixon could go to China.”

wouldn’t it beat-all if Rubio was to propose or sign legislation making English the official language of the nation?

Orangeone

It would be more politicking and he would “evolve” to Spanish for “humanitarian reasons”. Translation is extremely costly to taxpayers, wonder if someone has calculated it.

notsofastthere

It’s pretty upsetting and sounds like PC pandering, but other than insisting illegals learn English, what’s the option?
There are strong objections to Rubiio, Gowdy, Christi, Rand Paul. Looks like we are crossing off all future candidates. Who the heck are we going to have left?

Orangeone

We are a ways from 2016, we need to look at 2014 Senate and House. The RINOs have to go, strong conservatives need to be properly identified, vetted and supported.

notsofastthere

Agree, but it seems everyone is being called a RINO based on one speech or attempting to find a solution to problems that have metastasized over 50 years.
I think these guys are opened to input, which is more than the establishment has been willing to be. I would take any over Biden, Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, etc.

Orangeone

This isn’t his first speech on this. I wish I could provide Gowdy’s statement that he needs to clear up the misconception that illegals are receiving gov’t benefits. It was removed from Twitter within 5 minutes. And the gov’t itself has released the #s (greatly understated of course). So it isn’t just one thing and it doesn’t include state gov’t bennies, illegals voting (we had 25,000 Islamists vote in 2008 w/fictitious DLs hello Franken and ObamaCare), illegals driving drunk, killing people, sexually assaulting people. Were his CONSERVATIVE citizens told any of this? Is SC filled with illegals like MN that are in gangs, have guns and use them illegally?

And where has he been with Benghazi and Fast and Furious? Busy with illegals instead of murdered Americans. And let’s not forget about Barky’s illegal amnesty EO (crickets from Gowdy), and drones to murder Americans without a trial (crickets so far).

Like I said, I liked him, thought he would follow the Rule of Law. If our immigration laws and national security are of no concern, then what is. If Americans are thrown into prison for committing tax evasion, why are illegal aliens given amnesty?

notsofastthere

No argument from me. We have to see their voting records and not their words. Many loved Sarah Palin and Allan West- they were honest and true American’s, but they were vaporized in the political arena for being who they were. Conservatives were not able to stop their crucifiction. I don’t want amnesty, but someone has to start the ball rolling. I don’t want compromise either if it’s going to be caving in.

sDee

” I wish I could provide Gowdy’s statement that he needs to clear up the misconception that illegals are receiving gov’t benefits.”

I missed this Orange – what did he say?

Orangeone

That the public is under the misconception that illegals are receiving gov’t benefits, that they don’t qualify and are not receiving them. I replied to him that his stmt was not true, yes they are and also at the state levels. I want to say it was a month or so back.

It was my first flag. His next stmt was that he had to BALANCE the Rule of Law with compassion. Well call me cold but there is no compassion required for illegal aliens. The Rule of Law is our law and the oath to uphold is the oath.

sDee

His true colors shine through?

Orangeone

I don’t know but I have a flag up….

notsofastthere

I think Orange meant :……illigals aren’t receiving gov’t benefits”

sDee

🙂 yeah I figured as I kept reading

Orangeone

No, Gowdy said We The People have the misconception that illegals are receiving gov’t benefits. In other words, he believes they are not receiving gov’t benefits and that we are wrong to believe they are.

A Ron Paul supporter is running for MNGOP Chair 🙂 MN needs some liberty candidates to appeal and win.

Orangeone

We’ve been burned here, the last libertarian ran as a Republican, misled his entire district, and voted 100% with the Democrats. We just had a Rep House and Rep Senate for the first time in 40 years. Dems are running to abolish the 2nd Amendment, make felons of over 50% of its citizens (not adults but citizens) and raise taxes everywhere. MN will be Conservative in 2014, including the Governor (only lost by Repub because of an Independent)

Oh I bet that left a mark. Tweeps were not too happy and didn’t mince words either.

Sober_Thinking

I’m not done with Trey Gowdy or Rand Paul personally. Rand, especially has a few chinks in his armor… but both are still on the table for me.

As of Right now, I could back Ted Cruz or Allen West. I’d probably be okay if Sarah Palin was in there somewhere…

There are still plenty of superstars out there who would be excellent choices for all conservatives. I just think we all want the dream candidate who has no flaws whatsoever… which is not too much expect but may not be practical. Right now, the only ones that might fit that bill (for me anyway) are the three I mentioned in the second sentence above.

When people talk about “Conservatives need to come together”… this is exactly my point. Yeah, Rubio looks like the next establishment Republican poster boy… and God-forbid, Christie might be there too… but if we don’t back someone who has 80% of it right or 90% of it right (if we can’t find someone with 100%), then we’ll have no hope of unifying and winning.

Different conservatives have different “sticking points” or “hot buttons”… for some it’s dealing with all the illegal aliens in this country… for some the economy, for others maybe the tax system, foreign policy, social issues, military supporter, smaller government, economic experience, Constitutionally-minded, free market, individual sovereignty, voting records, or whatever. My point is, collectively, lets get a field of 5 or 6 Tea Party favorites and then vet them thoroughly and then get ALL of us behind someone. And no, I’m not talking about another Romney candidate or McLame that the GOP establishment shoves on us… someone who WE back and then, fight for that person tooth and nail.

Once again, if we don’t unite behind one solid candidate in the end… we’re hosed and we’ll be stuck with Hillary. However, there is lots of time before 2015 or so… and the cream will rise to the top. Good thing we’re awake and on the lookout this soon! 🙂

Orangeone

Excellent posts my Sober friend. We are aware and are vetting. Better to vet early and often than not to vet at all.

cabensg

I agree. Now is the time to get it all out and look around. It would be foolhardy to settle on anyone this early.

Sober_Thinking

Too bad Barky Boy didn’t go to the Vet.

He should have been neutered.

😉

Orangeone

I soooo needed those giggles!

If I may add: “and also de-barked”

Sober_Thinking

Exfoliated?

Then his bark won’t be worse than his bite…

Orangeone

Good one! I just was hoping to take the edge of his whine!

Sober_Thinking

That was “rough” (ruff).

Orangeone

🙂

notsofastthere

Good points. I never have been a single issue person. I want the whole package and am willing to take a bit less than perfect. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but you don’t have to sleep with the enemy and compromise core beliefs.

Sober_Thinking

Agreed.

LadyMacKeltar

100% agreed! We won’t find the perfect candidate in this imperfect world. We need to work together and be one voice. I look for candidates to be hot or cold on issues rather than someone who is lukewarm.

In the end I want what’s in the WH gone, and hopefully replaced with someone that truly believes, protects and defends our Constitution. 😉

I’m starting to think we’ll be stuck with a multi-party system before long. Until and unless Rubio starts to differentiate himself from being another Romney, and begins to talk Restoration, I can’t get behind him as a national candidate for anything.

It’s this simple: If you aren’t for Restoration, you aren’t conservative. So Rubio can be pro-life and pro-gun all he wants. But it won’t be enough to get my vote.

We need to get behind one of the folks you mentioned. I’m voting West in 2016. Decision’s done. All I care about now is the down-ticket stuff.

sDee

At his point I’d welcome a multi party system. One party rule really sucks.

Orangeone

Thank you K-Bob, thank you!

Sober_Thinking

I noted that too… how convenient.

Martin2717

It’s stupid. Period. Pandering is all this is. The Stupid Party still doesn’t have a clue, but it’s not surprising.

Orangeone

Saw from his staff on Twitter today yes English and Spanish. Wonder if someone will subtitle so we can see if he tells the Spanish-speakers something different than he tells us.

OBecian

Marco: Just expect no matter what you say you will either 1) be excoriated for not agreeing with Obama, or 2) be praised for appearing to agree with him (amnesty), or 3) be “fact checked” to death so that you will be forced to go on defense forever. You are the enemy of the left and their marching orders are to destroy you as quickly as possible. Other than that….good luck! I look forward to watching your response.

c4pfan

I won’t be watching either of them.

marketcomp

Agreed!

sjmom

Me either.

c4pfan

Oh, brother. Two responses pleading the case for the Dream Act.

Orangeone

It’s no longer the DREAM Act, it’s 100% of the illegal aliens for amnesty.

mike3e4r7

Let the re-branding begin!

RefudiateGOPe

Excellent news for who? This is just another example of the GOPe thrusting Rubio forward for 2016. Yeah, it’s good news for you because you’ve made it quite clear that you’re a Rubio fanboi, and that’s just fine if you continue to let your posters disagree with you.

BeyondPolls

Awww yeah

JoeMontana16

Who cares what that guy thinks? He has no backbone at all. He totally changed his views on ILLEGAL immigration AFTER he was elected. He does the amnesty Team of eight or the great eight, whatever they call it, thing which was to secure the border before letting criminals “come out of the shadows”. The next day ole Chuck Schumer announces that well….we aren’t doing that! Suckers!! Three strikes.

1. He has no backbone
2. He is now flip flopping. We just had one of those run for president. He lost.
3. He got straight up duped by Schumer. He got out maneuvered by an idiot.

Orangeone

Gang of Eight. Doesn’t that say it all? The Gang decides for hundreds of millions of legal immigrants and natural born citizens who would be tossed in prison for committing the same crimes.

cabensg

The members in the gang of eight was what gave me the creeps. It was one of those read it and weep things.

mike3e4r7

We still love you scoop. Just disagree on Rubio, that’s all. Thanks for letting us disagree with you.

This is an English-speaking nation. Persons wanting to speak Spanish should relocate south of the Rio Grande.

sDee

We grew up with a hard rule: SPEAK ENGLISH!

Sandra123456

No pandering to, no mollycoddling, of the Spanish speakers.

It always makes me mad that people can come here from China, Japan, etc, whose languages have absolutely nothing in common with English, different sounds, no alphabet similar to ours, etc, and become fluent in English, but not the Spanish speakers,who use the same alphabet as ours, and share many words in common with English, no they can’t learn English.

If Spanish speakers can’t learn English they are either too stupid to be here or just want to be catered to.

My state has just spent a lot of money changing all signs that said “Stop Ahead” To picture signs with the red stop sign image om the top with an arrow pointing toward the stop sign on the bottom. Absolutely asinine that all those signs were changed for those foreigners that can’t learn even 2 or 3 words.

No speaka da English, LEAVE!

Orangeone

And the Mexican flag flying in our country must also be illegal.

57thunderbird

Especially when they place it atop the American flag!

Orangeone

If I EVER saw that, I would find a way to rip their flag down.

57thunderbird

It has happened.I remember reading an article about it on Fox Nation about a year ago.I believe it was in Colorado .

Orangeone

My blood is boiling already……

Orangeone

Spanish is infiltrating our MSM commercials in MN!

aposematic

Rubio is a gifted speaker; so will wait and see/hear.

sDee

The chosen one. Primped packaged and preened. Another establishment empty suit with no principled foundation in liberty or linmited government. delivering his lines. It is bad enough living under the tyrant Obama, we now have to watch the successor to the throne being groomed.

I saw Ulsterman is peddling Rubio today too.

America has long been sold. The managers are picked for office. We have zero input. Zero representation.

I am really begin to wonder if this country ever was what I believed it to be.

aPLWBinAK

Count me among those who haven’t written Marco off yet. I know he’ll give a great rebuttal speech to Oblamer’s……in the past he’s shown himself to be fearless in calling Oblamer’s speeches as sounding like “what you’d expect to hear from a 3rd world dictator, and not from the President of the U.S.”

daeghrefn

“.in the past he’s shown himself to be fearless in calling Oblamer’s speeches as sounding like “what you’d expect to hear from a 3rd world dictator, and not from the President of the U.S.”

It’s nice of Marco Rubio to have the ability to do that for many Americans who do know English but understand Spanish a bit easier than it would be in English. Rubio knows that. There is a language/culture barriers in American and this will help try bridge the gap in that area.. Marco Rubio shouldn’t need to suppress that aspect of who he is and try to reach out to others using Spanish. This is America, America isn’t English only, there are many citizens who speak different languages, and there is nothing wrong with that, last I checked.

LadyMacKeltar

Let’s be honest here, Steven. There may be those who understand English but may be more comfortable in Spanish. However, the large percentage Senator Rubio will be addressing, failed to do more than learn a few words of English and still became American citizens. I spent twenty years in such a community, and still have family there, so I know of this first hand. Personally, I know many people who have no command of the English language. This is one of the groups Senator Rubio will be addressing.

Yes, this is America. It has been formed through waves of immigration almost since its founding. The difference is that those groups worked hard to learn the language and to become a part of our culture, integrating the best of their culture with ours. It’s only been this recent generation that won’t put in the effort as those that preceded them.

Why is it wrong for Rubio to reach out to them.. I don’t find anything wrong with that just because they don’t speak English.

sDee

Hispanics vote for Democrats by over 70%. The percentage has and will continue to steadily increase. Why – because the progressives (R’s & D’s) are applying the exact same victimization and identity politics that they did with the blacks, feminists and gays. Rubio will not even make a dent in that by pandering to them. The die is cast, the mind shaping permanent, the bilingual propaganda machine in full gear – Rubio is not “one of them”.

All he is doing is alienating millions of Conservative and Tea Party voters. The Republican Party is history. We are watching it self destruct.

But waiting from them to speak fluent in English isn’t going to help reach out to them. Just because you are worried they are going to be voting for democrats isn’t the right reason not to reach out to them. Not trying is worse. I don’t believe Rubio is trying to pander to illegals.

sDee

As k-Bob said that wil only work if he beleives deeply and can explain the core principles of a Constitutional Republic and Capitalism. He does not even do that in English so how could he do it Spanish?

We (conservatives) are competing against the Sirens’ Song of free stuff and entitlement from the left. The progressives have been working the illegal community (with our tax money) here for decades. What has now been instilled across generations is to resent us – an entitlement mentality. I know this first hand working with them. It is too late to get thorough to them.

LadyMacKeltar

Ok, so how about my husband who is American born and only speaks English? When we travel to Miami, he’s the one who has to make the effort to make himself understood because people like Senator Rubio enabled the Hispanic community, giving them no incentive to learn English. In order to communicate in his own country, my husband would need to learn a foreign language or have me as an interpreter all the time. The pandering to this generation of immigrants, to function without having to learn English has created a divide in our community as a whole, where Americans are practically foreigners in some of our major cities. The more we provide multilingual communication, the less they have to try.

My husband is only second generation American. His Italian grandparents arrived in this country without knowing a word in English. In order to raise a family here, they learned, so their children would succeed as Americans. Now a generation later, he could be struggling again to be understood in our native tongue, in our own country.

I don’t see anything wrong with local/state government in this country trying to communicate in multiple of languages in a community that they may need so that they might better understand. There is nothing wrong with Rubio speaking in English and Spanish..

Orangeone

Any idea what all that translation adds to the cost of goods produced, medicines produced and dispensed? It’s enough to pay off this year’s deficit.

sDee

The pandering to this generation of immigrants, to function without having to learn English has created a divide in our community as a whole,

That is indeed the objective.

mike3e4r7

It sends the wrong message. If they care enough about this country to even be concerned about what Rubio has to say, they certainly should have learned enough English, like the immigrants from Russia, China, etc. have, to be able to listen to him in our nations language – English.

As others have said on this forum, numerous other waves of immigrants have come to this country (my late grandfather for one) not knowing a word of English, and took pride in learning the language of their new country.

Orangeone

Maybe Obama can give his in Ebonics too to his hom buz understand it.

JRD1

Who will be giving the conservative response to Rubio’s delivering of Jeb Bush’s address?

cabensg

Good one!

c4pfan

Ha! Good one!

Orangeone

1,000 likes for the nonexistent 1,000 like button 🙂

hramirez18

I hope this will help to realize who is Marcos Rubio and he is the one chosen by the GOP

tvlgds

I’m over Rubio.

DeeDEEthree

Oh great the RINO BUSH PUPPET

rgolich

In Spanish, to non-Americans?

Folks the only solution for the country and for the GOP is to enforce the law. And that means, deportation. Start deporting the worst of the worst, then work up to the “mere” idendity thieves and income tax evaders and illegal laborers.

Just for because, since folks have brought it up, here’s my current thinking on languages in the US:

The government must be run in one language. Forget all the cultural crap, and assimilation arguments. The fact is, one cannot translate from English to any other language with 100% accuracy. This fact alone is crucial. We absolutely cannot have laws being interpreted based on language inconsistencies.

Any single language already presents difficulties when attempting to clarify law, policy, procedure, or standards. Some are worse than others, of course, but English has proven to be one of the better ones for the attempt to be clear, concise, and unequivocal. So it’s a good language to keep and improve.

Spanish is a fine language for communication, and also for literature, music, and poetry. It is not as complex as English, so it does not provide enough in the way of improvements to clarity and precision to justify dethroning English as the standard for government.

But only one language will work. We cannot risk the mistakes that two or more interpretations would introduce in administering the law. We need a law or an Amendment insuring this.

But what about the assimilation argument?

We’ve had large groups of non-English speaking immigrants, such as first-generation immigrant Chinese, in this country since before the Founding. I don’t have a problem with that. If I decide to go into some city’s version of “Chinatown,” and I cannot understand a store proprietor there, I don’t get upset at the proprietor. I simply shrug it off and determine to either avoid the place in the future, or learn more about the language and culture there for the next time. That’s liberty. I like it.

I actually enjoy cultural differences. It’s why I strongly approve of my Christian brothers and sisters being able to maintain the identity of our culture, and will fight to the death to prevent the government from attempts to water it down or suppress it. However, I don’t mind a community that’s largely “latino” or “native American” or Chinese; provided they recognize my right to freely associate, freely travel the public thoroughfares, and freely and safely conduct business with whomever I will. Thus, the “Dearbornistan” types of communities ought to be reformed. This is America, not Saudi Arabia or Iran. We live by American laws here, and if you don’t like it, leave. But I used to enjoy eating at Middle-Eastern restaurants, and going to their bakeries and shops. The more secular aspect of their culture is rich, and used to be highly artistic and romantic. The foods of the Middle East are amazing, and the old, old culture used to appreciate the sciences and math. So if the bloody, jihad fever ever abates, I would welcome the old cultures back with great appreciation.

But we must remain adamant about our own culture. We are not something to cast aside in favor of some mythical ideal. Obama’s time will end soon. We must see to it such an affront to our history, and such a racism-soaked outlook of hatred and negativity toward free-thinking and liberty never happens again. To do that, we really do need more outreach.

We do need to learn more about other cultures so we can better explain our own. To that end, I am beginning to learn more Spanish, because I believe I can better evangelize for liberty by reaching out to Spanish-speaking people. Senator Rubio would be very good for this, but it will never work unless he tells them about our Constitution , and what it means. He must tell them why Capitalism is their path to prosperity. If he fails to do this, then he should be dumped at our earliest opportunity. What good is it to be another pandering special-interest party? We already have one of those destroying the nation.

No one can take to words like you and WordsFailMe. And you are correct on each and every front. In addition to one language for our laws, must have one language for our medicines. And you are correct, you cannot interpret 100%. This is adding a huge cost to health care.

Case in point. If you’ve not tried to learn American Sign Language and communicate with the hearing impaired, give it a try. There is not a sign for each word and the time it takes to spell out a word is incredible. It’s a precious language, not frequently taught as the “foreign” language and thankfully we have great voice to typed translation software which is beneficial for this community.

You are also correct about Rubio. It’s too bad that he isn’t utilizing his Senate experience to teach other Hispanics the way Tim Scott is with the AA community. How this country could prosper if only….

There is an ugly face showing itself from some on this page in regard to English/Spanish, they rather be for exclusion than be for inclusion of Spanish speakers in the national debate. It’s very very ugly, speak English or Leave.. (And we are shocked when the left call us racists) That isn’t the America I know, the America I know welcomes it’s cultures and languages of others in this country. America wasn’t made for English Only citizens. Not everyone that speak Spanish are illegal here, believe it or not there are many legal Spanish speaking citizens in this country. Very disappointed to see that on this thread from many people I respect on here..

The problem stems from too many backward-thinking pundits and politicians who are stuck in the rut of using the language of the left. We simply do not have an “immigration” problem in the US. (Yes, we need to fix some problems with the immigration process and administration, but that’s aproblem that falls well down the list in terms of seriousness.)

Because these knotheads keep falling for the concept of “immigration reform,” when the acutal problem is illegal aliens who are NOT immigrants, then we see the anger and frustration evident in this thread. We are all sick of the pandering, lying, and outright fraud regarding our borders. Most people don’t get into it deeply enough to recognize the real issue, so they resort to the kinds of criticism you are seeing.

If we had anyone competent running the conservative movement or the national party, the problems would be properly framed, and we could all discuss them more intelligently.

Orangeone

Plus the rinse and repeat of illegal alien amnesty over and over and over again. We must take care of American citizens before we look at any further immigration. It’s nonsense to bring Indians here for technology jobs when we have more than sufficient supply of Americans to do the work (as an example).

We have a shortage of skilled technology degree workers. But it’s really freaking difficult for employers to get the Feds to allow real, productive, want-to-be-citizens in on H1-B and L1-B visas.

Educators I’ve spoken with at the graduate level say American kids shun the technology and engineering disciplines because they want high-paying jobs like they see doctors (massive debt), lawyers (good luck getting in a practice), and bankers (if you are #1 in your class at Wharton) getting. An awful lot of the engineering grads here are foreign nationals, and are going back to their home countries to work.

Meanwhile, the borders are a sieve, and they let in tons of “refugee status” immigrants who can’t do anything but menial labor and vote Democrat.

Orangeone

We have a surplus of college-educated IT folks w/10+ years of experience and engineering folks I could send to you! What we are hearing from college kids staying away from IT is because of all the layoffs after the Y2K and that companies are outsourcing to India.

Another huge problem is the demand for ridiculous levels of qualifications, thanks to lawsuit abuse. A smart, clever kid with half a degree, like Bill Gates, can’t get a job because they expect him to have a PhD or two now, to do the exact same work a normally-skilled person with a high-school diploma and some technical aptitude can do.

But this gets me to my usual rant against the big unies, and what a freaking ripoff they have become.

We need to get rid of the EPA and about half the government, and then let slip the dogs of entrepreneurialism.

I think I just made up that word.

Orangeone

I like your new word entrepreneuralism 🙂 And don’t we both know the power of the entrepreneur.

I like your positions, your thoughts, your insight, your ideas, how can we MAKE THEM SO?

Orangeone

We have 2 major sanctuary cities filled with illegals who do farm labor, landscaping, roofing jobs. Would love a round up, taxes going up again to pay for massive gov’t welfare programs, including ObamaTaxes (and yes our libs will put them all on it)

daeghrefn

It’s not racist to expect to have a national language. If I went to Mexico or Guatemala or Argentina to live, I’d be expected to learn Spanish.

When I think of the Freedom in America, I don’t even think of Mexico, Guatemala, or Argentina on the same level.. It’s about Freedom, not the preferred language. In America, your life, your culture, your community should be able to speak the language comfortable with and understand the best, and it’s okay for local/state/federal governments to assist them, as they try to do with English citizens as well.

daeghrefn

“Freedom” doesn’t mean that every public document or road sign or product label has to be in 30 different languages.

StandProudNow

No. You move to a country you learn the language, or don’t communicate. Whatever you speak at home is your own business. Just don’t expect the people who live here to CHANGE to accommodate YOU. How arrogant is that?

When in Rome, do as the Romans.

I’m an immigrant myself. No way would I ever expect the people of this great nation having to learn my language, or provide translation so I can vote.

LEARN THE FUDGING LANGUAGE!!!

DebbyX

I am not surprised that there are MANY Spanish speaking citizens here. I hear them everytime I go to the mall. That’s fine if they choose to speak their native tongue, but the rest of us should not have to press “1” for English to speak to a representative of a government agency or my doctor’s office. Learning the language would benefit them if they want to live here. We speak English.

America just isn’t about the majority, America tries look out for the minorities as well, it’s meant to represent all of it’s citizens. It is a good thing to have the option of having someone able to communicate the best with you the best you could understand, whether you have to press a simple button for english or spanish, don’t see that as an inconvenience or a problem..

sDee

Ugly? Perhaps you should understand our intent before judging us.

I am first generation American from immigrant parents. My father spoke five languages. He made sure we were Americans first and spoke English first. My kids are half Cuban and two learned to speak Spanish in school as an elective, because they choose to.

My family knew that if we did not all speak English fluently, we’d all still be living in a 2 bedroom walkup in Brooklyn.

I love languages and admire people who speak many. I just get damn mad hearing government officials speaking and promoting the language of those countries who would occupy us.

It is their intent that should piss you off. Their intent is to build up another underclass of 21st century economic slaves in America – held down by the chains of government entitlement. Rubio is a snake. If “hispanics” are fooled by that snake because he talks slick in two languages, then they will deserve what they get.

LadyMacKeltar

I’m sorry, but I believe you are wrong. This has nothing to do with exclusion. As I said in another post earlier, we have always accepted others with open arms and they have come and learned our language in order to be a part of our nation. This is the first time in our history, when those coming in are demanding we change for them. That is not wanting to become a part of a country, that’s wanting to turn the country into your own.

Go to most other countries in the world, specially Spanish speaking countries and as soon as you are outside the tourist traps, the only way to survive is to speak Spanish. And that’s fine, that’s their country and it should be expected. If you want to become a part of their culture, a part of their community, you should learn to communicate their way. It’s arrogant to think that you can go to a foreign country and expect that they are going to turn around and become conversant in your language, just to make new comers comfortable. This is not an issue of exclusion, this is an issue of joining the mainstream of an all ready established community and country. By your argument, every nation in the world should provide for every other nation’s language.

Speak english or leave really comes off as exclusion. Having a problem with Rubio trying to reach out to people in Spanish comes of as exclusion. That is not effective or tactful approach on this topic, IMHO..

I never said every nation in the world should provide for every other nation’s language, I don’t care about those other countries, I just believe America is better than every other nation on earth and our representative government is suppose to represent all of its people, from the majorities and minorities. And if trying to communicate better with others in another language other than English, there is nothing wrong with that.

No. And I was never talking about that… I’m not saying America has to speak other languages but if they (local/state governments/candidates) choose to do so there is no problem with that to help communities better communicate with its citizens. Really doesn’t make any sense people have a problem with Rubio speaking in English first and then in Spanish. Nobody is left out and even more people are included in the debate, which is a great thing about America.

Amjean

I would rather have Rand Paul.

Martin2717

Will there be a Tea Party response (a constitutionalist)? Because I’m not interested in anything GOP-related.

WordsFailMe

Will Rubio’s response be in Spanish or English?

sDee

Sounds like both. He will probably tape or delay one in Spanish. If he is going to pander in Spanish it does no good on an English only network.

It will be short:Mis amigos. ¡Viva Amnistía!

kssturgis62

Rubio is the PAWN OF THE GOP. they are USING him like he is USING THEM.

Jeb Bush is speaking at CPAC. The GOP aka GROUP OF PROGRESSIVES is going to sell you and tell you it is the only way to win, Jeb Bush for Pres and Marco for VP.

CPAC- is not what it used to be. They have REDEFINED what a Conservative is. If being conservative is having Liberals in your party and your party moving further left, then they can have it.

Rubio WILL BE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. WE SPEAK ENGLISH, we are NOT a BI LINGUAL Country. Watch out WE WILL BE. Multiculturalism has hit the USA, like Sweden, Norway, England and you know how well it has worked out for them.

He will tell you that those Poor Little Children need to have Citizenship, because even though they were never Citizens, they are Americans because they have lived here their whole lives and how can you make them suffer.

It doesn’t matter that they STOLE WELFARE, MEDICAL CARE, TOOK 20 Kids off their INCOME TAXES and got refunds of 20 Grand or more and sent it Back to Mexico, they STOLE their EDUCATION, and even though OUR MILITARY CANNOT get IN STATE TUITION, THOSE POOR LITTLE INNOCENT CHILDREN CAN HAVE IT and GET INCENTIVES OVER US CITIZENS CHILDREN !!

I AM SO FED UP.

james1051

do NOT care.
stooge

PVG

STATE OF THE UNION

aZjimbo

Who cares. You can see what the rino GOP is trying to do now with Rubio. Screw all of them.

Press one for English press two for Español……. I must hear it in my native tongues of Erie and Italian and German and French and Irish and Hebrew……. When the he!! are my native tongues going to be catered too

Mr. Rubio: How are you qualified to be President if you are not a natural born citizen? Why are we not following the immigration laws already on the books? Who will subsidize all these new citizens from your amnesty plan when many go on the government gravy train? What makes you think new immigration laws will be obeyed and enforced? You are just another sleazy politician and will never have my support.

So, not that anyone cares that much but here’s my last post. This is a copy of my message to Right Scoop regarding them allowing two identical forum identities. Any other “Richard” posts after this one ARE NOT ME!.

———— QUOTE ——————

Some one is posting under my forum profile name “Richard”.

Since all these messages are being tracked and archived I consider the duplication of identities you’ve allowed to be a serious breach of my privacy.

I’d like to delete my profile completely ASAP.

freeperjim

Just another Romney-RINO/Socialist-lite pushing amnesty for 30 MILLION ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ALIENS.

NO THANKS!!!!!

“In a society of COMMUNISTS, you DO NOT fight back by creating more sheep!”

Will he have Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush sitting beside him?
Or perhaps he’ll try to convince us about his Conservatism based on casting a vote to raise taxes $4 trillion with virtually no more spending cuts, essentially threatening Obama with bigger tax increases than he asked for.

1) He was born in a Cuban family with a nice story that he didn’t find nice enough.
2) The checklist-based format of Senate vote indices gives one much more room for grandstanding than having to face up to the realities of governing against a liberal majority while sticking to principles.

bobemakk

He’d better wake the hell up and not become a RINO and cave in like he has been doing lately. The republicans have very few selections for a real conservative president and I thought that Rubio was one of them, but not anymore. Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Allen West and even Herman Cain. These are true conservatives.

Crap. Spanish? That won’t be good for race relations because making such a major speech as the State of the Union response in Spanish on our soil is not what we’re about.
It doesn’t represent us.
Gosh.
Rubio lost me after supporting the Arab Spring.